[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 30353-30361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3685, EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION 
                              ACT OF 2007

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 793 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 793

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3685) to prohibit employment discrimination on 
     the basis of sexual orientation. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions of the bill are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     Amendment number 3 in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     may be withdrawn by its proponent before the question is put 
     thereon. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 3685 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague from the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 793.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 793 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 
2007, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the 
Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
  The rule makes in order three amendments that are included in the 
Rules Committee report. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of the Employment 
Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 and passage of this rule. By passing 
this bipartisan legislation today, the House of Representatives will 
take another step, important step, towards equality for all Americans.
  During the 230-year-plus history of our great Nation, the march 
towards equality under the law for all of our citizens has sometimes 
been slow, but it has been steady. Over time, Congress has outlawed 
discrimination in the workplace, based upon a person's race, gender, 
age, national origin, religion and disability, because when it comes to 
employment and hiring and firing and compensation and promotion, these 
decisions are rightly based upon a person's qualifications and job 
performance.

                              {time}  1300

  Sometimes the fight for equality has been slow in coming indeed. This 
legislation that outlaws job discrimination based upon sexual 
orientation that the Congress will pass today was first introduced over 
30 years ago.
  It is long past time to ensure that no one in our country can be 
discriminated against and fired from their job based upon who they are, 
whether it is their race, their color, whether they are a man or a 
woman, or whether they are gay. Private companies across America know 
this and are way ahead of the politicians here in Washington.
  Many of our neighbors back home would be shocked to learn that 
millions of Americans can be fired from their jobs or refused work or 
paid less and otherwise subjected to employment discrimination without 
regard for the quality of their work and without any recourse under 
Federal law. While many States, cities, and counties across the country 
have outlawed job discrimination on their own, many States and 
localities have not. I am proud that the cities of Tampa and St. 
Petersburg that I represent have outlawed job discrimination against 
gays and lesbians, but our counties have not, unfortunately.
  The Employment Non-Discrimination Act protects all Americans, no 
matter where they live, by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, 
and refuse to promote employees based upon a person's sexual 
orientation. See, in America no person should have to worry about the 
security of their job because of their sexual orientation. Our country 
bases employment evaluation on hard work and on a job well done. Making 
employment decisions on anything else is unacceptable. In fact, 90 
percent of Fortune 500 companies in the United States have adopted 
policies similar to the legislation that the Congress will pass today. 
And a broad coalition of businesses and community organizations 
strongly support this landmark civil rights legislation, including the 
Human Rights Campaign; the Anti-Defamation League; Central Conference 
of American Rabbis; the National Education Association; the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights; and, I am proud to say, the NAACP.
  I am proud that this Congress will stand up for equality for all 
Americans and stand behind our values and understanding that we do not 
discriminate against our neighbors for any reason, and we should be 
able to live comfortably with the knowledge that our neighbors will not 
discriminate against us. The passage of this legislation will remove a 
legitimate fear that exists among us that we may lose our job and be 
unable to provide for our families when someone decides to exercise 
intolerance and prejudices against us and our neighbors in the 
workplace.
  Thanks to extraordinary leaders in Congressman Barney Frank, 
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Chairman George Miller, Congressman Rob 
Andrews, Congressman Chris Shays, Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, and so 
many others that will stand up for Americans here in this body today 
and pass this law, I thank them for their leadership and their 
commitment to equality for all Americans. And I agree with them that 
passing this historic nondiscrimination act will bring our Nation 
closer to our goal and our promise of equality for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal law bans job discrimination based on race, 
color, national origin, or gender. In addition to

[[Page 30354]]

Federal law, 11 States have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on 
the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, while another 
eight States bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
  The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would extend Federal employment 
discrimination protections to employees on the basis of their actual or 
perceived sexual orientation.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose discrimination in the workplace, and I 
believe that skills and job performance are essential for determining 
whether employees are hired, promoted, or dismissed. However, I do not 
think it is the place of the Federal Government to legislate how each 
and every workplace operates. As a former small business owner, I know 
that what brings success to one company does not necessarily bring 
success to another.
  As I mentioned, a number of States have enacted State laws in this 
area. That is their right as States. Many small businesses and large 
corporations have chosen to adopt their own policies. That is 
appropriate as well, Mr. Speaker. This bill as written, though, raises 
a number of concerns, including that it would expand Federal law into a 
realm where perception, Mr. Speaker, would be a measure under 
discrimination law.
  On Monday, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and Members 
testifying before the committee pointed out that debate on the bill, at 
least in committee, had been productive and a respectful one. Mr. 
Speaker, I am truly disappointed that moments later, the Democrat-
controlled Rules Committee chose to report out a rule that denies the 
House and the American people the opportunity for a full and fair 
debate by prohibiting 99 percent of the Members of the U.S. House the 
opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments.
  For the last 2 weeks, Democrat leaders have had the opportunity to 
amend, alter, and change this bill. This editing and rewriting has been 
done behind closed doors and is contained within the Miller-Stupak 
amendment. Democrat leaders have acted to deny a public debate and to 
deny Republicans the opportunity to offer an amendment similar in scope 
to the Miller-Stupak amendment. This is not an open and honest way to 
run the House, and it is not what Democrat leaders promised the 
American people only a year ago.
  This rule only makes three amendments in order, Mr. Speaker, but 
buried in this rule there is a special provision, a special provision, 
that allows amendment No. 3 in the report of the Committee on Rules to 
be withdrawn by its proponent before the question of adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, what does this mean? It means that the Rules Committee 
decided to make three amendments in order but denies the House a vote 
on one of those amendments. I just have to wonder why the Democrat 
Rules Committee is denying a vote on this amendment. My friend from 
Florida was up there, and I would yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
if she can tell me why this provision is in the bill to deny the House 
a vote on amendment No. 3.
  I would yield to my friend if she would explain this for me.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer.
  I do wish Ms. Baldwin would allow a vote on the amendment. I strongly 
support the amendment, as many of those in the Congress do. But this 
was her request, and this is the way the rule has been structured.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
giving me that option. I can't remember how many times I have been in 
the Rules Committee talking about and asking Members who come forward 
with potential amendments what their choice would be, would they like 
to have an open rule or would they like to have a closed rule. And 
every time I hear, at least from the members of the Rules Committee, 
that the Rules Committee will decide.
  Now, it sounds in this particular case that one Member decided that 
she didn't want a vote on it, so we deny everybody in the House an 
opportunity. The gentlewoman said that she would like to be able to 
vote on this. I will give her the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say I have served on this Rules Committee for 
a decade, and I cannot recall one instance when Republicans were in 
control that a rule allowed a Member to bypass House Rules and withdraw 
an amendment. I believe it is wrong for a substantive legislative issue 
to be raised on the floor only to deny Americans, through their 
representatives, a voice on that amendment.
  Let's be clear about what is happening here. And that is that the 
rules of the House are being altered to block the House from voting on 
this amendment. It is clear and simple. We were elected to represent 
our constituents by casting a vote and votes, and today Democrat 
leaders are denying us a vote. I am extremely concerned with this 
unprecedented rule and I have an amendment, and I hope the gentlewoman 
will support me. My amendment would, in section 1 of the resolution, 
strike the sentence which begins, ``Amendment No. 3 in the report of 
the Committee on Rules.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be amended 
to reflect the change as offered in my amendment.
  Ms. CASTOR. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Florida yield for 
that request?
  Ms. CASTOR. No, I do not.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, did I hear objection?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida did not yield 
for that request.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. No, the question I have, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered and adopted.
  Ms. CASTOR. And I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida must first have 
yielded for that request. She has yielded for debate only.
  Ms. CASTOR. And I do not yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Is my amendment now before the body?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The gentlewoman from Florida yielded for 
debate only.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Does the gentlewoman yield to me so that 
I can offer the amendment?
  Ms. CASTOR. I do not yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida does not yield 
for that purpose.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to make this clear, Mr. 
Speaker. I am asking unanimous consent to have the amendment that I 
described be considered. Now, if I have to engage the gentlewoman for 
that determination, I would be happy to do so, but I am asking 
unanimous consent that that be done. I am just asking for a ruling on 
this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has yielded for the purpose 
of debate only. She did not yield for the purpose of propounding a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. So, Mr. Speaker, the way I understand 
your ruling, then, is that I hear no objection; so, therefore, my 
amendment should be made in order, and I would like to move the proper 
procedure as I don't hear any objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida did not yield 
for the purpose of offering an amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. So there has been an objection?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair cannot entertain the 
gentleman's request unless the manager of the resolution has yielded 
for that purpose.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlewoman yield? Did she 
reserve the right to object and would she yield at least to explain why 
she objected?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time was yielded for debate only. The 
gentleman is not entitled to propound that form of unanimous-consent 
request unless yielded to for that purpose.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  If I attempt to amend this, what procedure would I go through in 
order to try to amend this rule?

[[Page 30355]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the previous question were defeated, an 
amendment could be offered.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Further parliamentary inquiry. Then the 
only means I have is through the previous question and not to ask 
unanimous consent?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Or if the gentlewoman yields for that 
purpose.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlewoman yield so I can ask 
unanimous consent to amend the rule?
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague, but I will not yield at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not yielded.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I understand.
  Well, if that's the case, then, Mr. Speaker, I accept the ruling, and 
I wish I had a more full description of why there is a problem not at 
least allowing potentially a vote on amendment No. 3.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no other choice but to ask my colleagues, then, 
later on today to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the 
rule by striking the language that I described that allows the 
proponent of amendment No. 3 to withdraw their amendment before a vote.

                              {time}  1315

  So, just let me be clear. When I offered this motion, by voting 
``no'' on the previous question, Members will, therefore, be allowed to 
show their support or opposition on amendment No. 3, which would expand 
the bill's protections to persons discriminated against based on gender 
identity. This is defined in the amendment as ``gender-related 
identity, appearance, mannerisms or other characteristics of an 
individual, with or without regard to an individual's designated sex at 
birth.'' Now, Members who choose to say ``yes,'' then, on the previous 
question would, therefore, be showing their support for denying Members 
of this House an opportunity to vote on that issue.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge, and I will talk about this later, but 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' when I offer that motion on the 
previous question.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a 
Member of Congress that continuously and forcefully speaks out for 
equality for all Americans, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California.
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentlelady for yielding, for her 
leadership, and for her fairness and her diligent work on the Rules 
Committee. Also, I want to thank Chairman Barney Frank and 
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin for their hard work in bringing this bill 
to the floor today.
  First let me say that I was on the floor two nights ago, and Members 
of Congress so eloquently reminded us that this is National Bible Week. 
So as one who believes in the Scriptures, as a Christian, and as one 
who embraces what everything, Democrats and Republicans, were talking 
about the other night as it relates to love thy neighbor as thyself, we 
are responsible for the least of these. I know for a fact, like all of 
you know for a fact, that discrimination against anyone, and I mean 
anyone, is morally and ethically wrong, and it goes against the 
teachings of all of our great religions.
  The Baldwin amendment, which recognizes that transgendered Americans 
should have all of the protections and the rights of any person in 
America, should be included in this bill. It should include the Baldwin 
amendment. Because if we believe in who we are as a country, and if we 
believe that discrimination is wrong against anyone, then how in the 
world can we leave out a significant number of Americans in this bill?
  So, if it becomes law, transgendered Americans will still face 
discrimination in the workplace. And we must not let up until we ban 
discrimination against everyone.
  I just want to say, in closing, that gender identity should not be 
allowed in terms of discrimination in terms of the laws that we pass. 
We should not allow discrimination against anyone based on gender 
identity, based on sexual orientation, based on race, religion, age.
  This is America. This is America. And I think that the Baldwin 
amendment would take us one step closer to being the country and the 
America that we all believe in and that we all love.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  You were speaking, if I heard you correctly, on the Baldwin 
amendment. Now, the way the rule is structured, there is potential for 
not a vote on that amendment. I'm going to offer a motion on the 
previous question to allow that to be voted. Now, if I understood what 
the gentlelady was saying in her remarks, she would like the 
opportunity to debate that and presumably vote on that. So I would hope 
that the gentlelady would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. LEE. What I'm saying is I think that the Baldwin amendment should 
be part of the bill that we are debating today. I believe that 
discrimination against anyone in our country is wrong based on any----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I hope 
the gentlelady then will join with me in defeating the previous 
question so, in fact, we can have a vote on that amendment.
  Ms. LEE. As I said earlier, I believe that discrimination against 
anyone is wrong in our country, and especially discrimination based on 
gender identity.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, a gentleman who has 
devoted a large part of his career to fighting discrimination and 
prejudice in the workplace, Barney Frank from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am impressed by the 
sincerity of the gentleman from Washington's advocacy on people who are 
transgender, and I hope that as we contemplate this strategy today 
people will fully examine that.
  I regret the fact that there do not appear to be the votes in this 
House to include people who are transgender. And I am struck by the 
eagerness, frankly, of some people to use that group as a weapon with 
which to defeat the whole bill because these are people who are opposed 
not only to the inclusion of people who are transgender, but who have 
historically been opposed to including any protection for people at 
all.
  I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If the gentleman was listening to my remarks, I know he came in, 
unfortunately, after I had started making my remarks, but my whole 
point was suggesting that we have a process here where we can dispose 
of the measure, either for or against. That's all I'm saying.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. That's all the 
gentleman said, but the effect would be to try to undermine the bill. 
When people who are opposed to the basic bill and opposed to the 
amendment lament the chance not to vote on an amendment which would 
undermine the bill, people should understand where we are.
  I filed the bill that included people who are transgender. And 
earlier this year, I was very proud when this House passed a hate 
crimes bill which explicitly included people who are transgender. My 
recollection is the gentleman from Washington voted against that.
  We are in the following situation in this country: We have had 
prejudices of various sorts. Sadly, prejudice increases as difference 
increases. We have made progress in, I believe, disputing the prejudice 
against people, like myself, who are gay. We have not, lamentably, made 
as much progress in people who are transgender. I agree that the 
argument is there for including everyone. I agree that there was an 
argument for including legal immigrants in the SCHIP bill.
  The question we have is this: If we do not have the votes to go 
forward with as much as we would like to do, do we then abandon any 
effort? And do we

[[Page 30356]]

allow those who are opposed to any progress at all in the anti-
discrimination fight in this area to use a particular group as a way to 
prevent progress?
  Mr. Speaker, I've been voting on anti-discrimination measures for 35 
years when I first joined the legislature, and I have voted repeatedly 
to extend the protection to groups of which I am not a member, based on 
ethnicity, based on race, based on disability, based on age. I am now a 
beneficiary of the age one, but I wasn't when I voted for it. And I 
wish we had the votes in this House to ban discrimination of all sorts. 
I also wish that I had as much energy today as I did when I voted to 
ban AIDS discrimination when it wasn't eligible. I wish I could eat 
more and not gain weight. I wish a lot of things. But I will not act on 
my wishes irresponsibly.
  I hope we will go forward today and do as much as we can. I believe 
that if we are able to muster the votes to tell millions of Americans 
who are gay and lesbian that they are not bad people, that it is not 
legitimate to fire them simply because of who they are, the message we 
send to those people, the message we send to high school students who 
go to school each day fearing the kind of torment that they will 
confront, that that will be the most significant advance we have made 
in fighting prejudice since the Americans with Disabilities Act. I wish 
we could do more. And if we are able to do this, I will continue my 
efforts to do more.
  I am glad to see more recruits now to the effort to protect people 
who are transgender. I wish they were there when many of us were 
fighting many years ago.
  I will make this prediction, that if we go forward today and adopt 
legislation that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation but 
does not ban discrimination based on gender identity, some of us will 
continue to fight to protect people based on gender identity, and many 
of those seeking to use that issue today will be our opponents as we go 
forward trying to do it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts for yielding to me and at 
least airing in a brief exchange where I was trying to explain my 
position base was on the procedure and the rule. He took back his time. 
And while I think he may have conceded that that's what I was talking 
about, he said something to the effect of that's not what you meant. 
Now, I think he is expanding what my thought process is, but I do 
appreciate the gentleman for at least yielding to me.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I simply wanted to point out that this 
proposal that we be allowed to vote on this issue comes from people who 
are opposed to it in all regards and who understand that the effect of 
that procedure would be to undermine our ability to make any progress 
at all.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I have a great deal 
of respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, and he is one chairman 
who regularly comes to the Rules Committee and wants to have a full and 
open debate.
  I think that the gentleman would have to concede that this is a very 
unusual step where we are self-building into the rule an opportunity to 
deny a vote on an amendment that was made in order. That is contrary to 
what I've heard the gentleman say many times.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Sure, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. The rule gives the opportunity to 
the supporters of including transgender inclusion the right to make 
that decision, not its opponents.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  This is a very, very unusual procedure. And the whole point of a body 
like the United States Congress is to debate and dispose of issues. We 
are being denied that under the rule.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-
Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the 
rule that we have before us today. Primarily, I'm opposed to the 
measure's unclear wording that could easily lead to wide-ranging and 
serious consequences.
  This bill would prohibit discrimination, which is a good thing, on 
extremely hard-to-define measures such as an individual's perceived 
characteristics. I think it's the perception and the ``perceived'' 
language in here that is very troubling to me as a former small 
business owner with up to 15 employees. It would be impossible for 
employers to operate a business while having to worry about being 
accused of mistreating someone based on the employee's ``perceived 
characteristics.'' This ill-conceived, vague language is nothing more 
than a golden ticket for America's trial lawyers. This loose wording is 
also an invitation for accusations by disgruntled employees who want to 
take advantage of a poorly constructed law.
  Like all of my colleagues, I believe congressional policies should 
strive to promote a tolerant society. I believe many Members, including 
myself, would vote for it without the ``perception'' language in it.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts spoke before very eloquently, as he 
always does, and he said, our laws should not say that gay people are 
bad people. That's not what this bill says, nor has any bill that has 
come before us ever said that. When people that I come in contact with 
begin to disparage individuals who may be gay, I point out to them 
that, you know, you don't know whether your Aunt Jen, our son Bill, 
your grandson Paul or your granddaughter may be gay, so it's 
inappropriate.
  You know, it's inappropriate to make disparaging comments about 
anyone who is gay because people really don't know the people around 
them, whether they are or whether they're not, and it's really none of 
their business.

                              {time}  1330

  However, when that quest for intolerance in this bill leads us to 
costly and irresponsible ends, I think we must rethink the legislation. 
At a time when America faces so many challenges, the last thing 
Congress needs to be doing is finding a way to hand trial lawyers an 
avalanche of litigation to cash in on. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this poorly drafted legislation. Let's go back to the drafting board 
with this.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the passage of an ENDA that protects 
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. I have been a lead 
sponsor for proposals like ENDA every year since I became a member of 
the New York State Assembly 30 years ago. I am a proud original 
cosponsor of the original ENDA bill that would protect the entire LGBT 
community.
  I believe that civil rights are best advanced by bringing forward a 
bill that adequately protects all members of the LGBT community. While 
this may be risky, it is not reason to accept defeat before the fact 
and to leave behind members of the community who desperately need 
protection against employment discrimination.
  As we have seen in many States, the failure to include transgender 
people in civil rights legislation from the beginning makes it more 
difficult to extend protections later. My own State of New York, which 
enacted employment protections for lesbians and gays, has yet to extend 
these protections to the transgender community.
  The Senate has yet even to introduce its version of ENDA. Indeed, 
even if Congress were to adopt a noninclusive ENDA, the President has 
already pledged to veto this legislation. So it is not a question, as 
the gentleman from Massachusetts said, of now choosing to protect a 
great number of people and leaving behind a smaller number of people as 
the price of so doing because we cannot pass this legislation into law

[[Page 30357]]

and protect anyone this year, unfortunately. We must look to the future 
when we have a President who will support equality. I believe it is 
important we take a principled stand now and speak with a strong and 
united voice for equal rights for all Americans, whether they are 
lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in order to maximize the chance 
that when we can enact an ENDA bill into law, it will be an inclusive 
bill that protects everyone's rights. And we must better educate 
lawmakers and the public about the issues of gender identity and 
expression.
  While I may disagree with some of my colleagues on strategy, I assure 
you that we are united in support of the ultimate goal, protection from 
employment discrimination for the entire LGBT community. No one should 
underestimate the strength of that common commitment or our dedication 
to seeing it realized. Transgender Americans, because of a lack of 
familiarity and understanding, are more likely to face employment 
discrimination and, therefore, more in need of protection from 
irrational discrimination that an inclusive ENDA would afford.
  And removing gender identity from ENDA may also leave lesbian and gay 
employees vulnerable to discrimination for failing to conform to gender 
stereotypes. In other words, some employers and courts may take an 
overly restrictive view that an exclusive ENDA fails to protect 
lesbians who appear ``too masculine'' or gay men who appear ``too 
effeminate.'' That is not our intent, nor do we believe it is an 
accurate reading of the bill, but congressional intent does not always 
carry the day. Splitting sexual orientation and gender identity 
disserves the entire LGBT community and invites the kind of legal 
mischief that has undermined other civil rights laws.
  The fundamental issue is this: There are still too many places where 
it is entirely legal to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or 
transgender employees. We must bring an end to this unfair, 
unacceptable and un-American situation.
  When the House considers ENDA today, I will support the amendment 
introduced by Congresswoman Baldwin to restore the protections from 
discrimination based on gender identity. Should that amendment fail, I 
will not be able to vote for the underlying bill because it fails to 
uphold adequately the American values of fairness, equality and 
inclusion, but I will continue to fight for a proper ENDA bill that 
includes all the people who need its help.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 
minutes to a classmate of mine, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank my distinguished friend from Washington.
  Rather than comment generally on the bill here, I am going to focus 
on the rule. I will talk later on the bill itself.
  As a senior member of the Education Committee, we went through this 
debate in committee, and I find it reprehensible that the process we 
have been following increasingly in this House is to shut off debate, 
that ironically in a bill that is supposedly expanding rights, we have 
another narrowly drawn rule that deprived me of offering several 
amendments that I offered in committee, has a gerrymandered rule for 
another amendment that is unique in history, has several others put in 
in the Rules Committee that are very unclear.
  Let me go through a number of these different amendments. I offered 
an amendment in committee that was unanimously opposed by the Democrats 
in committee to eliminate the word ``perceived.'' This is a legal 
nightmare. There is no other law. There is talk about how ADA has some 
things vaguely familiar. But it does not say ``perceived.'' How in the 
world are you going to define ``perceived''? As anybody who has any 
friends who have worked with and been acquainted with people who have a 
homosexual lifestyle, there are all types. This is open-ended. There is 
no list here of what is perceived to be homosexual. How is an employer 
supposed to figure out whether it is perceived? Does that mean if he is 
a Christian and has made statements, somebody can file a suit because 
they perceived they were discriminated, not based on any kind of 
actions that occurred but something that was perceived? This is a legal 
nightmare and a precedent that is absolutely terrible, and we can't 
even vote. We can't even have a vote to strike the word ``perceived'' 
and have a full debate on the word ``perceived.'' What kind of an open 
process is that in the House?
  I also had an amendment that would have provided some protection for 
Christians who have strong views in the workplace and will insert into 
the Record at this point a number of cases. An AT&T employee was fired 
because he wouldn't sign a statement that contradicted his religious 
beliefs on accepting homosexual behavior. A man was fired at Red Cross 
for not participating in Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and forcing him to 
observe that. Others have been fired for other reasons.
  The question is not whether you can harass somebody in the workplace. 
That is already illegal. If you mock somebody, that is already illegal. 
If you commit a hate crime, that is already illegal. The question is, 
can you as a Christian express your views and not be persecuted? That, 
yes, in a sense it is at least a plurality of Americans profess 
Christianity, a smaller percent conservative Christianity, but we are 
moving so far as to restrict the rights in the workplace of Christians' 
even ability to hold or say anything about their views. People can't 
even have Bible studies in some places it has been ruled because that 
would be offensive to homosexuals in the workplace based on this law in 
some cities and have been upheld in the court.
  Now, moving past the two amendments that were unanimously defeated in 
committee and then we weren't allowed to debate as a whole House, we 
have an amendment that was added in response to another amendment from 
Pete Hoekstra in committee that would have exempted Christian colleges. 
It was unanimously defeated by the Democrats in committee. Then 
suddenly in the Rules Committee we have it added with a religious 
exemption. The problem with the religious exemption, and here I would 
like to put into the Record a number of cases that show the problem 
with this. Loyola University was deprived of a religious exemption 
because even though it was founded by Jesuits, its charter requires its 
president to be a Jesuit and more than one-third of their trustees, 
they were denied because they didn't meet one of those criteria. A 
Friends School, a Quaker school, was denied a religious exemption 
because it had to have multiple proof that everybody there was Quaker 
and was following every rule. A private religious school was denied for 
similar type things. A business that wanted to run as a religious world 
view was clearly denied the religious exemption. An orphanage by the 
United Methodist Church was denied the ability because it had gone 
secular. They wanted to come back and be a Methodist church again and 
they were denied, and these were all court decisions, because they were 
no longer purely Methodists and they didn't have a right to go back and 
be Methodist. This is in addition to the 2,500 Christian bookstores in 
America. Only 14 percent are run by a church. Eighty-six percent are 
either for-profit or not primarily religious organizations.
  Under this bill, they will be forced to hire homosexuals regardless 
of the personal views of Christian bookstores. This is going to happen 
in various independent organizations that are quasi-part of the church. 
Sometimes the church will operate a for-profit entity, that runs as a 
for-profit entity, that would not be predominantly for a religious 
purpose, but the proceeds go to the church, therefore, they will 
implement their church beliefs in it, even though it is a for-profit 
entity. None of that is exempted under this. We didn't even get a 
chance to debate this amendment. It just came in in the rule.
  Now, we move to another amendment that suddenly appeared, or I guess 
we will be debating here on marriage. Somehow in response to debate in 
committee, they are saying that this won't affect the Defense of 
Marriage Act.

[[Page 30358]]

This is another lawsuit amendment because that is directly contrary to 
the fundamental part of the bill. My amendment tries to address part of 
this, but quite frankly, it is a legal quagmire.
  Then we come to amendments that are allowed. We have had some debate 
on this gender equity for transgender and transvestite. Now, the 
challenge here is not whether you favor it or are against it. I heard 
my friend from New York say he was going to vote for it. He can't vote 
for it. We are not allowed to vote for it. We have been banned from 
having a debate. What happened to the day when we have a debate, you 
win or lose? To come in unprecedented, I have never heard, as a staffer 
or a Member, a rule coming in prohibiting in the rule a vote. This is 
an in-your-face tactic as part of this bill to not let us debate the 
religious underpinnings and the religious stuff, not debate 
``perceived,'' not debate protections for people who are individuals, 
not have a vote on transgender, and it's 5 minutes on each side to even 
debate it.
  This is an abominable rule. It is a precedent-setting, terrible, 
terrible rule. I urge people to support my colleague Mr. Hastings' 
motion on the previous question and to vote against that so we can have 
some amendments to this rule and then vote against this abominable rule 
because it sets precedents we will regret for a long, long time no 
matter which party is in the majority.

         Examples of Discrimination Against Religious Employees

       Christian employees who read Bibles during ``diversity 
     training'' reprimanded and spend four years in lawsuits to 
     obtain reversal. The ACLJ filed suit in April 1998 against 
     the Minnesota Department of Corrections on behalf of Thomas 
     Altman and Ken Yackly to force their employer to rescind the 
     reprimands they received in 1997 after they silently read 
     their Bibles at a state-mandated training session called 
     ``Gays and Lesbians in the Workplace.'' The employees 
     contended that the training session was little more than a 
     state-sponsored indoctrination aimed at changing their 
     religious beliefs about homosexuality. Four years later, and 
     several appeals later, the employees were finally vindicated.
       AT&T employee in Denver fired for refusing to sign company-
     required pledge to recognize, respect and value sexual 
     orientation differences within the company. In January 2001, 
     an employee of AT&T was required to sign a new AT&T Broadband 
     Employee Handbook with policies that conflicted with his 
     religious beliefs by condoning the homosexual lifestyle. 
     After notifying his supervisor that based on his religious 
     belief he could not sign the certificate of understanding, he 
     was fired.
       Christian firefighter suspended for handing out tract 
     entitled ``The truth about homosexuality.'' Madison, Wis., 
     firefighter Ron Greer nearly lost his job for giving his 
     colleagues a tract entitled, ``The truth about 
     homosexuality.'' He was suspended and ordered to attend 
     diversity training for violating the city's anti-
     discrimination code.
       Hospice worker fired by gay supervisor for expressing 
     Christian beliefs about homosexuality. Debra Kelly, a former 
     hospice worker in Philadelphia, was fired for expressing her 
     Christian beliefs about homosexuality. Her supervisor, a 
     supporter of ACT-UP, a militant homosexual group, said Kelly 
     was intolerant and unsuited for her position.
       At Hewlett Packard's plant in Boise, Idaho, an employee 
     with a 21-year record of meeting or exceeding expectations 
     was fired for refusing to remove Bible verses about 
     homosexuality from his cubicle. The employee allegedly posted 
     the Bible verses in response to a poster near his cubicle 
     that he perceived to be promoting GLBT relationships. HP 
     openly admitted that its reasoning for firing the employee 
     was ``his overt opposition to HP's Diversity Advertising 
     Campaign.''
       Man fired by American Red Cross for not celebrating 
     homosexuality Michael Hartman was employed by the Red Cross 
     in San Diego. The company sent a mass e-mail to all employees 
     in 2005 promoting ``Gay and Lesbian Pride Month,'' urging 
     them to ``observe'' the celebration. Hartman, a Christian, 
     communicated his religious objections to his supervisors and 
     was promptly called in and told his communication was 
     ``inappropriate.'' Hartmann was fired.
       Oakland city employees posting a flier on a company 
     bulletin board forced to remove flier and threatened with 
     discipline. Oakland, Calif., city employees Regina Rederlord 
     and Robin Christy formed a group called the ``Good News 
     Employee Association'' and posted a flier on a company 
     bulletin board advertising a ``forum for people of faith to 
     express their views on contemporary issues of the day, with 
     respect for the natural family, marriage and family values.'' 
     After a lesbian employee complained of being offended by the 
     flier, the city removed the flier and threatened the two 
     women with adverse employment action for placing the fliers 
     ``in public view which contained statements of a homophobic 
     nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation 
     based harassment.'' A federal court upheld the city's action.
       In Portland, Maine, city officials canceled a $60,000 grant 
     for a Salvation Army meals-on-wheels program for senior 
     citizens. Why? As a Christian denomination, the Salvation 
     Army won't provide marital benefits to homosexual employees, 
     thus running afoul of the city's ``sexual orientation'' law. 
     When the Portland's ``sexual orientation'' ordinance was 
     introduced, proponents argued, as they do often today, that 
     it would merely ensure that ``people won't be fired for being 
     ``gay.''
       A District of Columbia human rights commission ordered 
     Georgetown University, a Catholic college, to violate church 
     doctrine and sponsor a pro-homosexual group on campus. A 
     court agreed, saying the District's ``sexual orientation'' 
     law overrode the school's religious freedom. It didn't matter 
     that neither ``sexual orientation'' nor sodomy are protected 
     in the Constitution or that religion is specifically 
     protected. In the hands of the judges, ``sexual orientation'' 
     takes on a life of its own.
       In 2003 Atlanta Human Rights Commission ordered a local 
     golf club to extend spousal rights to gay member partners, 
     Thankfully officials intervened, and the Georgia legislature 
     promptly passed a law exempting private clubs from local 
     anti-discrimination obligations.
       In June, 2001, The District of Columbia's Commission on 
     Human Rights fined the Scouts $100,000 and ordered them to 
     reinstate two openly homosexual leaders. That decision was 
     overturned in court, but the Scouts paid heavy legal fees.
       In Arlington, Virginia, a video duplicator had been ordered 
     by the Arlington County Human Rights Commission to produce 
     video material for a lesbian activist or pay for someone else 
     to duplicate the videos. The videos Vincenz wanted duplicated 
     were two documentaries entitled: ``Gay and Proud'' and 
     ``Second Largest Minority''. Tim Bono, argued that he could 
     not, in good conscience (him being a Christian), produce 
     material that promoted homosexual activity.
       In 2006 the 9th Circuit Court in California ruled last year 
     (06) that members of a Christian employees group for the city 
     of Oakland could not use words like ``marriage,'' ``natural 
     family,'' or ``family values'' in email correspondence or on 
     posters in city offices where a wide variety of groups are 
     allowed to post. The 9th circuit panel decided that such 
     words were akin to hate speech because they made homosexual 
     city employees uncomfortable.

         Cases Where Courts Wrongly Denied Religious Exemption

       Fike v. United Methodist Children's Home of Virginia, Inc., 
     547 F. Supp. 286 (E.D. Va. 1982)--an orphanage founded by the 
     Methodist Church, trustees required to be Methodists, sought 
     to teach Christian doctrine and belief to the children. New 
     President sought to take group in more secular direction and 
     was fired, despite the entity's desire to recapture its 
     original founding mission to be a thoroughly Christian (and 
     Methodist) charity service. Court held it had become too 
     secular in the interim, and denied religious exemption.
       Pime v. Loyola University--Catholic University denied the 
     general religious exemption under Title VII despite the fact 
     that it was founded by Jesuits, its charter requires its 
     President to be a Jesuit, and more than one third of its 
     trustees are Jesuits.
       Doe v. Abington Friends School, 480 F. 3d 252 (3d Cir. 
     2007)--religious school run and funded entirely by Quakers 
     not entitled to early dismissal on religious exemption 
     grounds in an Americans with Disabilities Act case, but was 
     required to submit to extensive discovery demands of the 
     plaintiff.
       EEOC v. Kamehameha School/Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th 
     Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 439 (1993)--private 
     Protestant religious school denied Title VII religious 
     exemption even though it had numerous religious 
     characteristics and activities.
       EEOC v. Townley Eng'g & Mfg. Co., 859 F. 2d 610 (9th Cir. 
     1988)--no exemption for manufacturing company whose owner had 
     a clearly religious world view and wanted it to permeate the 
     workplace.

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is 
sensitive to religious organizations and our fundamental religious 
beliefs and tenets, and it includes a very broad religious exemption. 
In fact, we are going to debate later on the Miller amendment that, if 
adopted, would make clear that ENDA exempts the same group of religious 
organizations that are currently exempt from prohibition on religious 
discrimination under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  Now, we know not everyone, not every employer will agree that gay 
people should be protected from employment discrimination. But for the 
betterment and advancement of our society as a whole, ENDA would 
overrule that judgment so that Americans are

[[Page 30359]]

treated fairly and equally. But nothing in ENDA or in any civil rights 
law that has come before us in the history of this country affects the 
ability, the God-given right of a person to hold contrary beliefs based 
on religion or otherwise.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those moments where the 
House gets to demonstrate the degree to which we are truly committed to 
the unfolding of 14th amendment rights to due process and equal 
protection of the law. We get a chance to determine that today. I 
believe that people who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or 
transgender are entitled to the full and equal protection of employment 
laws.
  The principles behind the original draft of ENDA sought to embrace 
the fullness of a community which has experienced significant 
undermining of rights in the workplace. None of us can know, unless we 
have walked in somebody's shoes, but let's imagine for a moment that 
someone who presents himself or herself as being of another sex or 
gender, imagine what they must go through in their daily lives. And 
imagine we who take an oath to defend the Constitution would somehow 
separate the people from the claims of justice and from the claims of 
constitutional protection.

                              {time}  1345

  We all love this country. We all love being Americans. But to be an 
American means really standing for those constitutional principles and 
really understanding that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are 
something that everyone should have access to and that everyone should 
have equal protection of the law and due process.
  I am very concerned, as my Republican colleagues are, that the 
Baldwin amendment can be offered and pulled back without a vote, 
because if it was given a vote, I would vote for the Baldwin amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman 
from Ohio 30 seconds, if the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I share the concern that 
my Republican colleagues have that we won't have a chance to vote on a 
Baldwin amendment, because I believe that this is not a Republican or 
Democrat issue.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I gave 
the gentleman time to hopefully respond to what I am going to suggest, 
and that is if he would vote ``no'' on the previous question, that 
would be to amend the rule to allow a vote under normal rules, normal 
order. So if you would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, you will have an opportunity to vote on that amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the newest Member, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak against H.R. 3685, the Employment 
Non-Discrimination Act, and the restrictive, undemocratic and 
authoritarian rule that the majority party has put before us today. Mr. 
Speaker, I realize that I am one of the newest Members of the House of 
Representatives, having been sworn in just 3 months ago, but I 
recognize a totalitarian regime when I see one.
  In my short tenure here, the Democratic majority has made a mockery 
of the democratic process, and today's rule is a perfect example. For 
you good folks at home, this is what is happening in a nutshell. The 
Democrats sprung this bill on us that will grant special employment 
privileges and a protected minority status to anyone who defines 
themselves by their sexual orientation.
  But that's not all. They gave us less than 24 hours, less than 24 
hours' notice that this bill will be on the floor, because when the 
schedule for this week was sent last Friday, it made no mention of this 
discriminatory bill. And for good reason. They don't want the American 
people to realize they are undermining America's religious liberties in 
the House of Representatives.
  But they didn't stop there. Then the Democratic majority decided to 
rig the process to block Republican amendments to even slightly improve 
this terrible and unfortunate bill. An authoritarian regime, right here 
in the House of Representatives, otherwise known as the Democratic 
majority.
  I will vote against this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney), an outspoken advocate for equality for all 
Americans.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the underlying bill and the Baldwin amendment. ENDA will offer real 
protections to tens of millions of Americans now. Right now, far too 
many workers go to work every day fearing that they could be fired on 
the spot, no questions asked, if their employer discovered their sexual 
orientation. This year, it is legal in 30 States to fire someone simply 
because he or she is gay, lesbian or bisexual.
  Hardworking, tax-paying Americans shouldn't be forced into the 
shadows, and they should not have to live with the constant, legitimate 
fear that they could lose their jobs. That is why I strongly support 
providing protection from discrimination to transgender Americans, and 
I will not rest until their right to live their lives free of fear, 
discrimination, and intolerance is the law of this land.
  Mr. Speaker, I know from my years on the city council where we worked 
to pass similar legislation and my years in the women's movement that 
we need to make history now and pass the underlying bill and protect 
people here in America now.
  No one should be discriminated against because of his or her sexual 
orientation or perceived sexual orientation. And this bill will also 
lay the groundwork to provide sorely needed protections in the future 
to countless more Americans who need and deserve them.
  This historic advance for civil rights has been more than three 
decades in the making--and it has not come easy.
  When Bella Abzug first introduced a sexual orientation civil rights 
bill in 1974, she was able to enlist only one cosponsor, Ed Koch, my 
predecessor in the district that I represent. It stood absolutely no 
chance of passage.
  We've come a long way since then, but our progress has been hard-
fought and incremental.
  Most of our greatest legislative victories have only been achieved 
step by step. The measure before us today is by no means complete or 
definitive.
  The sad truth is that transgender Americans need and deserve 
protection from employment discrimination. All too often they bear the 
brunt of brutal bigotry, and are subject to unspeakable hatred and 
violence.
  That is why I strongly support providing protection from 
discrimination to transgender Americans. And I will not rest until 
their right to live their lives free of fear, discrimination and 
intolerance is the law of the land.
  In 1986, when I served on the New York City Council, we succeeded in 
passing legislation to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation in employment and housing. That bill had come before the 
Council repeatedly since 1971. It took 15 years, but we finally managed 
to pass it. It was only later that the Council enacted specific 
protections for the transgender community.
  Many said the 19th Amendment didn't go far enough when that passed. 
While it gave women the right to vote, it didn't address a host of 
social inequities between men and women, many of which persist today. 
Decades after that Amendment was ratified, we passed the Equal Pay Act 
and title VII. And, while we still haven't passed the Equal Rights 
Amendment, I remain optimistic that our day will soon come.
  The New Direction Democratic Congress passed a hate crimes bill 
earlier this year that included important protections for lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, and transgender people. And we hope to have another important 
victory here today. I'm confident these incremental successes will lay 
the foundation for additional protections for the entire LGBT community 
in the future.
  And so, while I deeply regret that transgender Americans are not 
protected by the legislation before us today, I nonetheless urge my 
distinguished colleagues to support it. I do so with the knowledge and 
the determination that we will be back to continue to press the fight 
for all Americans to live free from discrimination.
  I urge my colleagues to help make history today by supporting this 
landmark legislation

[[Page 30360]]

and taking this important step towards ensuring that discrimination 
based on sexual orientation will not be tolerated in the United States 
of America.
  I would also like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Frank, and 
Congresswoman Baldwin for their leadership in this critical battle for 
civil rights.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt), another outspoken advocate of equality for all 
Americans.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of inclusive ENDA that 
provides employment protections for sexual orientation as well as 
gender identity, I am an original cosponsor of the original ENDA that 
was introduced earlier this year, the legislation we should be taking 
up today.
  In my home State of New Jersey, we are proud to have a fully 
inclusive employment nondiscrimination law. We are proud of the New 
Jersey-based businesses that have corporate policies against 
discrimination based on gender identity, in addition to sexual 
orientation. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Prudential 
Financial prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity, 
not only because they believe it's the right thing to do morally and 
ethically, but also they know it's a matter of corporate 
competitiveness and good for their companies.
  Mr. Speaker, our distinguished colleague John Lewis often reminds us 
of the words of Dr. King, ``The time is always right to do the right 
thing.'' Dr. King warned us against the tranquilizing drug of 
gradualism. I am concerned that when we break apart legislation, some 
pieces fall on the floor to get swept into the dustbin of history or to 
be considered only years later. We should not do this to members of our 
society who need and deserve the same protections as all other 
Americans.
  I want to thank the members of Garden State Equality, New Jersey 
Stonewall Democrats, the New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition for their 
hard work and tireless efforts for inclusive protections. I ask to 
include in the Record a letter from Johnson & Johnson Company 
supporting an inclusive ENDA bill and a copy of the statement of 
dissent by Representatives Clarke, Kucinich, Sanchez and me in the 
committee markup of this legislation.

                                                 Johnson & Johnson


                                               Services, Inc.,

                                 Washington, DC, October 19, 2007.
     Hon. Rush Holt,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Holt: I would like to express Johnson & 
     Johnson's support for H.R. 2015, the Employment Non-
     Discrimination Act (ENDA). This legislation is essential in 
     providing federal protections to prevent workplace 
     discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender 
     identity.
       At Johnson & Johnson, we recognize employees as the 
     cornerstone of our success. For this reason, the company 
     adheres to a vigorous Equal Employment Opportunity Policy 
     that provides a working environment free of discrimination 
     and harassment based on sexual orientation. This policy is 
     consistent with our commitment to ensuring the respect of our 
     employees and guaranteeing each individual a sense of 
     security.
       We believe that H.R. 2015 is a very important step towards 
     addressing employment discrimination and fostering true 
     equality. In addition to establishing federal protections, 
     ENDA legislation also creates an enforcement mechanism 
     through the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC). 
     This enforcement power has led to the monumental successes of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Government Employee 
     Rights Act of 1991. I look forward to working with you in the 
     future to achieve our mutual goal of eradicating workplace 
     discrimination. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may 
     provide further assistance.
           Best regards,
                                                   Shannon Salmon,
     VP, President Affairs.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, October 22, 2007.
       We dissent from H.R. 3685, a narrow version of the 
     Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that excludes 
     protections based on gender identity. We are co-sponsors of 
     H.R. 2015, the original version of ENDA introduced earlier 
     this year, that would prohibit workplace discrimination based 
     on sexual orientation and gender identity. While we agree 
     with H.R. 3685's objective of prohibiting workplace 
     discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, we do not 
     support the decision to remove gender identity from the bill 
     because it leaves this legislation woefully incomplete. H.R. 
     3685 fails to expressly protect transgender people, who are 
     among the most at risk for discrimination. The decision to 
     strip gender identity from the bill was not based on 
     substantive concerns about the bill's language, but rather on 
     a perception that protecting this vulnerable group might 
     jeopardize the bill's chances for clean passage on the House 
     floor. We cannot support this rationale, which reinforces the 
     very bias and discrimination that ENDA seeks to prohibit.
       Transgender individuals and their families aspire to the 
     same basic rights as other Americans, including equal access 
     to gainful employment and fair housing in safe communities. 
     Yet across this country, transgender people face extremely 
     high rates of unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. 
     Studies across the country reveal that transgender people 
     suffer a 35% unemployment rate, with 60% earning less than 
     $15,300 a year. As a result of this disparity in income and 
     employment levels, a disproportionate number of transgender 
     people cannot support themselves or their families, and many 
     are literally forced onto the streets. Every American has the 
     right to be free from discrimination in employment and to be 
     judged solely on one's performance in the workplace--not on 
     irrelevant characteristics such as sexual orientation and 
     gender identity. We are eager to support legislation that 
     addresses such discrimination, and we wish that we would have 
     had an opportunity to do so in Committee.
       We believe that Congress should pursue the path that state 
     legislatures have uniformly followed for the past several 
     years, which is to pass measures that include both sexual 
     orientation and gender identity. Such inclusive laws have 
     passed on the local and state level in jurisdictions in every 
     region of the country. Nationally, 37% of the U.S. population 
     lives in jurisdictions that prohibit gender identity 
     discrimination. Currently, there are inclusive laws in twelve 
     states and over 90 local jurisdictions, including Iowa, New 
     Jersey, Colorado, and Oregon, which passed inclusive laws 
     just this year. Congress should be reinforcing these efforts 
     instead of undermining advancement on the state and local 
     level.
       We have heard overwhelmingly from constituents and civil 
     rights organizations that passage of this non-inclusive bill 
     will undermine the ultimate attainment of full employment 
     protections for all LGBT individuals. We are not aware of a 
     single gay or LGBT organization that has endorsed this bill. 
     In contrast, over 300 organizations have formally opposed 
     H.R. 3685 because it omits gender identity protections. These 
     include national groups such as the National Gay and Lesbian 
     Task Force, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality 
     Federation, National Black Justice Coalition, National 
     Association of LGBT Community Centers, Pride At Work (AFL-
     CIO), PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and 
     Gays), and the National Center for Transgender Equality. Also 
     in opposition is nearly every single statewide organization 
     that represents the LGBT community in their state, including 
     Equality Alabama, Equality California, Equality Illinois, 
     Equality Maryland, Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, Garden 
     State Equality, Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality Florida, 
     Equality Maine, Equality Ohio, Equal Rights Washington, and 
     Equality Texas.
       For the reasons set forth herein, we respectfully dissent 
     from H.R. 3685.
     Rush Holt,
       Member of Congress.
     Yvette Clark,
       Member of Congress.
     Linda T. Sanchez,
       Member of Congress.
     Dennis J. Kucinich,
       Member of Congress.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for some conservatives to come to the 
floor, I am waiting for some true intellectually consistent 
conservative Members of the other party who understand that in their 
mantra of government staying out of people's private lives, in their 
mantra of allowing the marketplace to work, allowing people to be 
judged by their hard work, by their tenacity, by their skill, I am 
waiting for those people to come to the floor and say that we believe 
in ENDA. We believe in the idea of not government selecting who's going 
to win but letting the marketplace do it.
  We believe in our friends in the private sector, 350 or so Fortune 
500 companies that already practice ENDA that we are going to be voting 
on today. Where are they? Where are those Members of my colleague's 
party

[[Page 30361]]

that are shamed by their record on civil rights throughout the years 
and want to make it right now? Where are the Members of that party who 
are going to come forward and say, I don't want to explain to my 
grandkids why I was on the wrong side of another civil rights movement? 
Where are those Members of that party who claim to be conservative? 
Speak up now. This is your moment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), our distinguished chairman of the Education 
and Labor Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, a 
Member who has been outspoken in his fight against discrimination for 
all Americans.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise 
in support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize a point of agreement and a point of 
disagreement: There is a broad and growing agreement that members of 
the transgendered community should receive the full protection of the 
Federal law, and many of us are committed to work to achieve that day 
as soon as we possibly can. But there is a strong point of disagreement 
that I have heard from the minority side about the procedure on which 
we are taking up this bill.
  We had a vigorous debate in the full committee about this bill and 
three concerns were raised. One was the issue of the transgendered 
community, and Ms. Baldwin has in order an amendment, which she will 
decide the disposition of, so that issue can be raised. The second is 
the scope of the religious exemption, which my friends vigorously 
debated, and Mr. Miller and Mr. Stupak's manager's amendment raises 
that very same issue, and there will be a debate and there will be a 
disposition. Finally, there was some discussion as to the impact of 
this bill on the question of the definition of marriage, and the 
amendment of Mr. Miller and Mr. Stupak will make in order a debate and 
a disposition of that issue as well.
  The purpose of the House, with all due respect to my friends on the 
other side, the purpose of the House is not to debate every issue for 
as long as it takes until everyone is done talking. The purpose of the 
House is to have a fair and reasonable proceeding and to decide, and 
that is what we are going to do here.
  I would just say one final thing to my friend, and I know he is going 
to ask me to yield, and I will do so if he agrees to yield to me when 
my time has expired. But my friend speaks with great enthusiasm to 
bringing to a vote on the floor the question of transgendered people.
  I would ask my friend why, for the previous 12 years that his group 
has had the majority here, they never brought the issue to the floor 
during those 12 years if they have such intense feelings in favor.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I would probably respond to your direct question that for 
the same reason for the 20 years prior to that your party didn't bring 
it up either.
  But what I want to say, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, the 
gentleman said that the purpose of the House is not to debate every 
issue. I would tend to agree with that. But I think that the gentleman 
would have to agree with me that when there are propositions that are 
made in order, whether it is a bill or whether it is an amendment, that 
they ought to be debated and disposed of by the House and not be 
covered up, if you will.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the majority will have a chance to work its 
will, the House will have a chance to work its will on his proposition, 
and we will make a majority decision and he will either win or lose, 
which I think is fair and within the rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am 
glad the gentleman would do that. I hope he would join me. I am just 
worried that this is so unprecedented for this to happen. That is the 
point I made from the outset, and that is the point I make right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker for my side, so I will 
reserve my time until it is time to close.

                          ____________________